Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Formulation and Evaluation of a Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Vorticity Model (TVM)

P. Thunis Environment Institute, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy

Search for other papers by P. Thunis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
and
A. Clappier Laboratoire d’Etude de la Pollution de l’Air, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Search for other papers by A. Clappier in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Sep 2000
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128<3236:FAEOAN>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
3236–3251
Restricted access

Abstract

This paper describes the formulation and the application of the nonhydrostatic anelastic vorticity model (TVM). This model is constructed using a method involving two horizontal streamfunctions and two horizontal vorticity components. The evaluation of this formulation is performed by simulating various bidimensional hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic mountain wave cases. Results are compared with analytical solutions and in particular with those developed by Laprise and Peltier for nonlinear forcings. The anelastic formulation is also validated with respect to the highly nonlinear 1972 Boulder windstorm. TVM is shown to accurately reproduce these mountain wave test cases in both its incompressible and anelastic formulations.

In the second part of this paper, the adequacy of the hydrostatic and anelastic assumptions in simulating thermally induced circulations is investigated and compared to previous works. For a moderate surface thermal forcing, typical geographical setups are used and show slight differences between hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic horizontal wind speeds. For vertical wind speeds, differences are shown to be much larger and more sensitive to changes in grid resolution. For more stringent thermal surface forcing, differences remain low for horizontal wind speeds but increase considerably for the vertical wind component.

The comparison between anelastic and incompressible solutions for the same cases shows the adequacy of the incompressible assumption when circulations are forced by the surface and are characterized by a relatively shallow vertical extent. In such conditions, virtually no differences are observed between the two formulations.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Philippe Thunis, Environment Institute, Joint Research Centre, TP 280, 21020 Ispra, Italy.

Email: philippe.thunis@jrc.it

Abstract

This paper describes the formulation and the application of the nonhydrostatic anelastic vorticity model (TVM). This model is constructed using a method involving two horizontal streamfunctions and two horizontal vorticity components. The evaluation of this formulation is performed by simulating various bidimensional hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic mountain wave cases. Results are compared with analytical solutions and in particular with those developed by Laprise and Peltier for nonlinear forcings. The anelastic formulation is also validated with respect to the highly nonlinear 1972 Boulder windstorm. TVM is shown to accurately reproduce these mountain wave test cases in both its incompressible and anelastic formulations.

In the second part of this paper, the adequacy of the hydrostatic and anelastic assumptions in simulating thermally induced circulations is investigated and compared to previous works. For a moderate surface thermal forcing, typical geographical setups are used and show slight differences between hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic horizontal wind speeds. For vertical wind speeds, differences are shown to be much larger and more sensitive to changes in grid resolution. For more stringent thermal surface forcing, differences remain low for horizontal wind speeds but increase considerably for the vertical wind component.

The comparison between anelastic and incompressible solutions for the same cases shows the adequacy of the incompressible assumption when circulations are forced by the surface and are characterized by a relatively shallow vertical extent. In such conditions, virtually no differences are observed between the two formulations.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Philippe Thunis, Environment Institute, Joint Research Centre, TP 280, 21020 Ispra, Italy.

Email: philippe.thunis@jrc.it

Save
Cover Monthly Weather Review
Monthly Weather Review

  • Bornstein, R. D., S. Klotz, U. Pechinger, R. Salvador, R. Street, L. J. Shieh, F. Ludwig, and R. Miller, 1986: Application of linked three-dimensional PBL and dispersion models to New York City. Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application, Vol. V, Plenum Press, 543–564.

  • ——, P. Thunis, P. Grossi, and G. Schayes, 1996: Topographic-vorticity mode mesoscale-β (TVM) model. Part II: Evaluation. J. Appl. Meteor.,35, 1824–1834.

  • Buty, D., J. Caneill, and B. Carissimo, 1988: Simulation numérique de la couche limite atmosphérique en terrain complexe au moyen d’un modèle mésométéorologique nonhydrostatique: Le code MERCURE. J. Theor. Appl. Mech.,7, 35–52.

  • Carpenter, R. L., K. Droegemeier, P. R. Woodward, and C. E. Hane, 1990: Application of the Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) to meteorological modeling. Mon. Wea. Rev.,118, 586–612.

  • Clappier, A., 1998: A correction method for use in multidimensional time-splitting advection algorithms: Application to two- and three-dimensional transport. Mon. Wea. Rev.,126, 232–242.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 2000: Effect of sea breeze on air pollution in the greater Athens area. Part I: Numerical simulations and field observations. J. Appl. Meteor.,39, 546–562.

  • Collela, P., and P. Woodward, 1984: The Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) for gas dynamical simulations. J. Comput. Phys.,54, 174–201.

  • De Ridder, K., and G. Schayes, 1997: The IAGL land surface model. J. Appl. Meteor.,36, 167–182.

  • Doyle, J. D., and Coauthors, 2000: An intercomparison of model-predicted wave breaking for the 11 January 1972 Boulder windstorm. Mon. Wea. Rev.,128, 901–914.

  • Durran, D. R., 1990: Mountain waves and downslope winds. Atmospheric Processes over Complex Terrain, Meteor. Monogr., No. 45, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 59–81.

  • ——, and J. B. Klemp, 1983: A compressible model for the simulation of moist mountain waves. Mon. Wea. Rev.,111, 2341–2361.

  • Elkhafi, A., and B. Carissimo, 1993: Numerical simulations of a mountain wave observed during the “Pyrenees Experiment”: Hydrostatic/non-hydrostatic comparison and time evolution. Beitr. Phys. Atmos.,66, 183–200.

  • Gal-Chen, T., and R. Somerville, 1975: On the use of a coordinate transformation for the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations. J. Comput. Phys.,17, 209–228.

  • Grossi, P., P. Thunis, A. Martilli, and A. Clappier, 2000: Effect of sea breeze on air pollution in the greater Athens area. Part II: Analysis of different emission scenarios. J. Appl. Meteor.,39, 563–575.

  • Kato, T., 1997: Hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic simulations of moist convection: Review and further study. Meteor. Atmos. Phys.,63, 39–51.

  • Keller, T. L., 1994: Implications of the hydrostatic assumption on atmospheric gravity waves. J. Atmos. Sci.,51, 1915–1929.

  • Laprise, R., and W. R. Peltier, 1989: On the structural characteristics of steady finite-amplitude mountain waves over bell-shaped topography. J. Atmos. Sci.,46, 586–595.

  • Lilly, D. K., 1978: A severe downslope windstorm and aircraft turbulence event induced by a mountain wave. J. Atmos. Sci.,35, 59–77.

  • ——, and E. J. Zipser, 1972: The front range windstorm of 11 January 1972—A meteorological narrative. Weatherwise,25, 56–63.

  • Malkus, J. S., and G. Witt, 1959: The evolution of a convective element: A numerical calculation. The Atmosphere and the Sea in Motion: Scientific Contributions to the Rossby Memorial Volume, B. Bolin, Ed., Oxford University Press, 425–439.

  • Martin, L. C., and R. A. Pielke, 1983: The adequacy of the hydrostatic assumption in sea breeze modeling over flat terrain. J. Atmos. Sci.,40, 1472–1481.

  • Moeng, C., and A. Arakawa, 1980: A numerical study of a marine subtropical stratus cloud layer and its stability. J. Atmos. Sci.,37, 2661–2676.

  • Nance, L. B., and D. R. Durran, 1994: A comparison of the accuracy of three anelastic systems and the pseudo-incompressible system. J. Atmos. Sci.,51, 3549–3565.

  • Orville, H. D., and L. J. Sloan, 1970: A numerical simulation of the life history of a rainstorm. J. Atmos. Sci.,27, 1148–1159.

  • Pearson, R. A., 1973: Properties of the sea breeze front as shown by a numerical model. J. Atmos. Sci.,30, 1050–1060.

  • Peltier, W. R., and T. L. Clark, 1979: The evolution and stability of finite-amplitude mountain waves. Part II: Surface wave drag and severe downslope windstorms. J. Atmos. Sci.,36, 1498–1529.

  • Pielke, R., 1984: Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling. Academic Press, 468 pp.

  • Saitoh, T. S., T. Shimada, and H. Hoshi, 1996: Modeling and simulation of the Tokyo urban heat island. Atmos. Environ.,30, 3431–3442.

  • Schayes, G., P. Thunis, and R. Bornstein, 1996: Topographic vorticity-mode mesoscale-β (TVM) model. Part I: Formulation. J. Appl. Meteor.,35, 1815–1823.

  • Schumann, U., T. Hauf, H. Holler, H. Schmidt, and H. Volkert, 1987:A mesoscale model for the simulation of turbulence, clouds and flow over mountains: Formulation and validation examples. Beitr. Phys. Atmos.,60, 413–446.

  • Sharman, R. D., T. L. Keller, and M. G. Wurtele, 1988: Incompressible and anelastic flow simulations on numerically generated grids. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 1124–1136.

  • Sievers, U., and W. G. Zdunkowski, 1986: A microscale urban climate model. Beitr. Phys. Atmos.,59, 13–40.

  • Smith, R. B., 1979: The influence of mountains on the atmosphere. Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 21, Academic Press, 87–230.

  • Therry, G., and P. Lacarrère, 1983: Improving the eddy kinetic energy model for planetary boundary layer description. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,25, 63–88.

  • Thunis, P., and R. Bornstein, 1996: Hierarchy of mesoscale flow assumptions and equations. J. Atmos. Sci.,53, 380–397.

  • ——, and C. Cuvelier, 1999: Impact of biogenic emissions on ozone formation in the Mediterranean area—A BEMA modelling study. Atmos. Environ.,34, 467–481.

  • Thyer, N. H., 1966: A theoretical explanation of mountain and valley winds by a numerical model. Arch. Meteor. Geophys. Bioklimatol.,26, 39–50.

  • Tripoli, G. J., and W. R. Cotton, 1982: Colorado State University three-dimensional cloud/mesoscale model, 1982: Part I, General theoretical framework and sensitivity experiments. J. Rech. Atmos.,16, 185–219.

  • van der Vorst, H. A., 1992: BI-CGSTAB: A fast and smoothly converging variant of BI-CG for the solution of nonsymmetric linear systems. J. Sci. Stat. Comput.,13, 631–644.

  • Yang, X., 1991: A study of nonhydrostatic effects in idealized sea breeze systems. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,54, 183–208.

  • ——, 1993: A nonhydrostatic model for simulation of airflow over mesoscale bell-shaped ridges. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,65, 401–424.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 114 48 0
PDF Downloads 54 13 2